On 30 Jan 2010 at 12:08am j.p wrote:
hands up if you think we live in a ploice state
On 30 Jan 2010 at 12:55am Green Eyed Crab wrote:
If only!
On 30 Jan 2010 at 2:34am SG wrote:
Am I the only one that feels pretty good about the fact that there are 4 CCTV cameras between my house and my work? I'm okay with living in a police state, I'm not doing anything wrong.
On 30 Jan 2010 at 5:37am Terry Waite's Allotment wrote:
More of a Nanny state than a Ploice state!
On 30 Jan 2010 at 10:40am Sherlock wrote:
I'm glad it's only a ploice state. It would be terrible to live in a police state.
On 30 Jan 2010 at 12:04pm Yawn wrote:
SG- neither were the Birmingham 6, the Guilford Four, the guy wrongly imprisoned for Rachel Nickel's murder, etc etc.
On 30 Jan 2010 at 12:07pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
You dnot alwyas ncotie scuh mitskaes bceusae as lnog as the frist and lsat ltertrs are in the rgiht placae the rset can be in any odrer but you can siltl raed it.
On 30 Jan 2010 at 12:17pm SAR wrote:
SG, people like you're the reason why we really should be afraid. Let's see if you do anything wrong when the Police puts their planned surveillance drones into service and works with the local authority to spy from high above on every of your steps from 'waste management' to driving. However, I forgot you're a law abiding citizen and get along just well with the authorities. Like people in the 30s who were not shipped off for 'correction' purpose.
On 30 Jan 2010 at 12:49pm Hay Nonnie Mouse wrote:
If your wife, partner son or daughter go missing you will be glad of those cameras. If you are beaten on the way to work or stabbed or robbed on the way home. I don't want to sound negative but they are not just because YOU did something wrong. you may say it's unlikely but wouldn't you prefer it, IF something like this happens?
On 30 Jan 2010 at 1:06pm SAR wrote:
HNM, people have been robbed, murdered etc, for hundreds of years. Surveillance and laws will not change that. You're on the completely wrong track. Next thing you say is that you like Tony Blair? 
On 30 Jan 2010 at 1:15pm Sherlock wrote:
Hay Nonnie Mouse wrote: 'If your wife, partner son or daughter go missing you will be glad of those cameras.'
I don't know how many times this has to be said - but the evidence is that CCTV is completely ineffective and even the police accept this. Read this: (the usual www) then guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1
One of the problems of discussions like this is that people prefer anecdote that fits their own pre-conceptions rather than the evidence.
On 30 Jan 2010 at 1:29pm Dave wrote:
Soon ESCC will also be using CCTV to enforce the parking regs at school entrances, like Brighton.
On 30 Jan 2010 at 4:53pm Uh? wrote:
SG we don't know where you live so how can we know how many cameras there are from your house to your employer. And we don't know who your employer is either. So you could be lying.
On 31 Jan 2010 at 12:38am SG wrote:
Uh? - That wasn't actually what I meant, what I was saying was that I feel safer walking around at night because they are there, as I'm sure many other people do. No, they're not the answer to all our problems, but the knowledge that they're there prevents a few more people from committing crime, and they make me feel less vulnerable knowing that if something does happen to me, someone would be aware of it eventually.
On 31 Jan 2010 at 12:49am SAR wrote:
SG - in theory, somone can walk up to your car now, smash the rear window, spill petrol and set it alight. There would be no consequences for the perpetrator, 99.9%. With CCTV and surveillance drones or not. And you may find that all you get is a 'Sorry you were victim of a crime' letter. Apologies to rock your sheltered world. All these 'measures' are not what you think they are for.
On 31 Jan 2010 at 10:02am SG wrote:
Yes. Wow. My life has truly been shaken by this amazing revelation. Thank you.
I understand their limitations and weaknesses. My point is and was that they're better than nothing at all. I've been a victim of crime before in which the CCTV cameras were useful, and even though they couldn't stop me from being in that situation at the time, they did confirm my account of what had happened and help to identify the criminal.
No, they don't always work like that. But like I said, I'd rather they were there than nothing at all.
On 1 Feb 2010 at 4:23pm Ed Can Do wrote:
And was that criminal subsequently charged and received any sort of punishment beyond a gentle admonishment? Probably not.
CCTV is used more to direct police to incidents in progress than to provide evidence, hence it's a handy thing to have if you happen to be getting mugged in direct sight of it, although with only a couple of officers on duty at any given time in Lewes you have to hope there's no other crime going on at the same time.
We're lucky to live somewhere with incredibly little crime and despite people's fears, we're nothing like a police state. You should try going to China, they have bag searches for everyone using a train and the concierge knew all the details of when we were leaving before the people we were staying with did.